Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Joe podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeart Radio app
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. President Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: making a plea to federal lawmakers to take action to
Speaker 1: curb gun violence in America. Of course, Democrats never explained
Speaker 1: how their legislation would stop the shootings. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, their ideas tend to have the opposite of
Speaker 1: their intended effect. And it's all good though, as long
Speaker 1: as they do something right. That's what they seem to think. Friends,
Speaker 1: it's time for hold the line. Welcome to hold on.
Speaker 1: I'm Buck Sexton. He had another chance last night, Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: President of United States. Better for worse. I think we
Speaker 1: all see it's pretty much always for worse. But he
Speaker 1: had an opportunity to bring together the American people and
Speaker 1: say some intelligent things, first of all, about the national
Speaker 1: healing process that should still be underwear in the aftermath
Speaker 1: of the horrific shooting in Uvalde, amongst some other shootings
Speaker 1: as well in recent days that having gotten nearly as
Speaker 1: much attention but also atrocious the shooting in Oklahoma, for example.
Speaker 1: But Joe Biden took the opportunity to give a speech
Speaker 1: that was rooted in emotional blackmail, a lot of untruth,
Speaker 1: a lot of misdirection, and was basically just an opportunity
Speaker 1: to attack his political opponents instead of actually looking at
Speaker 1: what would be serious about trying to stop violence in
Speaker 1: this country. Joe Biden wants to tell you how much
Speaker 1: he hates the NRA and the gun owners out there
Speaker 1: who don't want to go along with this. Here he says, though,
Speaker 1: that he has by partisan legislation to do something. This time,
Speaker 1: we have to take the time to do something, and
Speaker 1: this time it's time for the Senate to do something.
Speaker 1: But as we know, in order to do any get
Speaker 1: anything done in the Senate, we need a minimum of
Speaker 1: ten Republican senators. I support the partisan efforts that include
Speaker 1: small group of Democrats and Republicans centers trying to find
Speaker 1: a way, But my god, the fact that the majority
Speaker 1: of the Senate Republicans don't want any of these proposals
Speaker 1: even to be debated or come up for a vote,
Speaker 1: I find unconscionable. We can't fail the American people again.
Speaker 1: Do what, Joe, That's really what this comes in. Okay,
Speaker 1: do what we'll talk about some of the things that
Speaker 1: he said should be done, and see, the reason they
Speaker 1: want to get so much of the emotion out there
Speaker 1: is that they just want a mobilized mentality on this
Speaker 1: issue without having to explain how then the actions that
Speaker 1: they want taken wouldn't actually change anything that we've seen
Speaker 1: going on. I mean, for example, Biden mentioned there have
Speaker 1: been twenty mass shootings. Now, how you define mass shootings
Speaker 1: is something that people There are different definitions of it
Speaker 1: out there, but usually it's three or more people who
Speaker 1: have been shot. Often these mass shootings involve gang activity
Speaker 1: and other criminal activity that is completely in a different
Speaker 1: category from the kind of mass murder that we saw
Speaker 1: in that school in Uval Day. But here's Biden saying,
Speaker 1: there have been twenty mass shooting since you've all day watched,
Speaker 1: since Valdi just over a week ago, there have been
Speaker 1: twenty other mass shootings in America, each with four or
Speaker 1: more people killed or injured, including yesterday at a hospital
Speaker 1: in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a shooter to liberally target a surgeon
Speaker 1: using an assault up and he bought just a few
Speaker 1: hours before his rampage that left a surgeon, another doctor
Speaker 1: receptionist and a patient dead and many more injured. That
Speaker 1: doesn't count the carnage we see every single day. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make the headlines. So how would any of the
Speaker 1: things which include an assault rifle, band, magazine limitation, How
Speaker 1: would any of these things that he wants, safe storage requirements,
Speaker 1: red flag laws, would they have stopped? He said there
Speaker 1: have been twenty mass shootings. Would they have stopped any
Speaker 1: of those mass shooting? If the answer is yes, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden should tell us how and which mass shooting would
Speaker 1: have been stopped. Let's just say, for example, the shooter
Speaker 1: in Tulsa, Oklahoma, had been told sorry, there's an assault
Speaker 1: rifle ban. In effect, shooter could have just bought a pistol,
Speaker 1: just as lethal, could have used two pistols, like the
Speaker 1: horrific mass shooting at Virginia Tech, where it was two pistols.
Speaker 1: It was not a rifle that was used in that
Speaker 1: mass shooting. In fact, if you look at the ford
Speaker 1: Hood shooting, another mass shooting, high casualty account, many debts
Speaker 1: attributed to that incident. That horrific incident, pistols, not a rifle.
Speaker 1: So changing the weapon isn't going to actually change the
Speaker 1: lethal intent of psychopathic hillers, So how would it have
Speaker 1: stopped anything? He doesn't even pretend that he has an
Speaker 1: answer to that. But what he does want, of worse
Speaker 1: is political mobilization. Here. He wants people who are Democrats
Speaker 1: and I guess some independence, although he's not winning over
Speaker 1: any independence with this from the numbers that we can see.
Speaker 1: He wants his political rivals, the Republican Party, to suffer
Speaker 1: the consequences of not going along with these proposals that
Speaker 1: quite clearly would do nothing to stop gun violence in
Speaker 1: any meaningful way. Why. I've been in this fight for
Speaker 1: a long time. I know how hard it is, but
Speaker 1: I'll never give up. Congress fails, I believe this time
Speaker 1: a majority of the American people won't give up either.
Speaker 1: I believe the majority of you will act to turn
Speaker 1: your outrage into making this issue central to your vote.
Speaker 1: Enough enough, No, he's wrong, that's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: But it does make the left wing anti gun base
Speaker 1: feel good about themselves. Really, so much of Democrat politics
Speaker 1: around guns is just they don't like gun owners in general,
Speaker 1: lawful gun owners, criminals Democrats always have a soft spot for,
Speaker 1: but lawful gun owners they do not like and they
Speaker 1: want to always remind everybody of that fact in whatever
Speaker 1: ways they can. Um Karine. Jean Pierre says that Biden
Speaker 1: knows how to get things done because he's taken on
Speaker 1: the gun lobby. Watch thanks. If the resident thinks that
Speaker 1: Congress must act immediately to end this apidemic of gun violence,
Speaker 1: is he going to bring any of the key players
Speaker 1: from Capitol Hill to the beach with him tonight? Okay?
Speaker 1: Um uh So, I don't have a whole thing that
Speaker 1: he knows how to get things done. He does, he does.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's he's beating the gun lobby before he has.
Speaker 1: But it's not it's not say this is how it's done,
Speaker 1: but it's not his thing. It's actually fact we saw
Speaker 1: he did that in the Senate during his crow Congress days,
Speaker 1: that he beat the gun lobby. Think about this beat
Speaker 1: the gun lobby as if there's some all powerful enemy
Speaker 1: out there. That's the gun lobby. The problem that they
Speaker 1: have is gun owners, as in Americans who have Second
Speaker 1: Amendment rights who don't agree with this nonsense. That's it.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day. By the way, since
Speaker 1: we're talking about ending or rather limiting mitigating violence to
Speaker 1: the greatest of your possible loss of life. Look at
Speaker 1: Democrat policies and cities all across the country. Do you
Speaker 1: think they're really strict about enforcing gun crimes when it
Speaker 1: comes to when it comes to people who are associated
Speaker 1: with gangs, people who have a previous criminal history. Not
Speaker 1: in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago. Oh no, no,
Speaker 1: they're letting them walk. In many cases, they're giving them
Speaker 1: plea bargains that they should never be handing to people
Speaker 1: with any kind of violent intent who are carrying firearms
Speaker 1: on the streets. But you know, social justice. And then
Speaker 1: there's this Oregon's decriminalization of drugs, for example, Democrats push
Speaker 1: this Oregan's first in the nation's scheme to decriminalize drugs
Speaker 1: and encourage those possessing them to seek medical help has
Speaker 1: been blighted with problems. They've had a seven hundred percent
Speaker 1: increase in overdoses in the past year seven x. Another
Speaker 1: Democrat policy like going soft on crime, like defunding police
Speaker 1: that results in people dying in large numbers. Why don't
Speaker 1: they address that because there is large numbers of people
Speaker 1: that are dying from this one hundred thousand plus overdoses
Speaker 1: last year. Now Democrats would rather just do a lot
Speaker 1: of virtue signaling. All right, we'll have more on this
Speaker 1: situation with the author and columns David Marcus. When we
Speaker 1: come back. Let's talk about protecting her home first. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you saw this. There was a recent
Speaker 1: story about an Arizona real estate agent who found that
Speaker 1: the home she lived in was listed for sale. That's fine, right,
Speaker 1: except no, he wasn't actually selling her home. He was
Speaker 1: a victim of home title fraud, a devastating crime that
Speaker 1: happens all over the country. According to the experts at
Speaker 1: home title lock, the crime is incredibly profitable and hard
Speaker 1: to detect. An identity thief simply creates a fake title
Speaker 1: transfer for your home and refiles as the new owner.
Speaker 1: Then he can take out loans on your home or
Speaker 1: sell it. Typical identity theft services don't cover you, and
Speaker 1: neither does homeowners insurance. Home title lock does. Home tutle
Speaker 1: lock puts a barrier around your home's title the instant
Speaker 1: they detect anyone tampered with their home's title, they help
Speaker 1: shut it down, and they help get your home back
Speaker 1: in your name. So go to hometutlelock dot com. Now
Speaker 1: tell them that Bucks sent you for thirty free days
Speaker 1: our protection. That's home tuttlelock dot com Again hometitlelock dot com.
Speaker 1: David Marcus stopped by in a moment. Support from my
Speaker 1: podcast is brought to you by Manscape, the best and
Speaker 1: men's below the ways Grooming. Their products are precision engineered tools.
Speaker 1: Manscapes Performance Package is the ultimate men's hygiene bundle. Join
Speaker 1: over four million men worldwide who trusts Manscape with its
Speaker 1: exclusive offer for you twenty percent off and free worldwide
Speaker 1: shipping with the code buck at manscape dot com. The
Speaker 1: Performance Package four point zero includes a ton of men's
Speaker 1: grooming products like the Lawnmower four point zero trimmer, the
Speaker 1: weed Whacker, Era No's hair trimmer, Performance boxer, briefs, and
Speaker 1: a bunch of other great men's hygiene products you never
Speaker 1: knew you needed, plus a travel bag to hold it all.
Speaker 1: The lawnmower trimmer is the best. It's got a cutting
Speaker 1: edge ceramic blade to reduce grooming accidents, and it's waterproof
Speaker 1: so no more messes on the bathroom floor. You'll also
Speaker 1: get the waterproof weed Whacker nose, an ear hair trimmer
Speaker 1: with proprietary skin safe technology which helps reduce nicks, snags
Speaker 1: and tugs in all those delicate areas. Get twenty percent
Speaker 1: off and free shipping with the code buck at manscape
Speaker 1: dot com. That's twenty percent off with free shipping at
Speaker 1: manscape dot com and use code buck to unlock your
Speaker 1: confidence and always use the right tools with Manscape. You
Speaker 1: will not stop us from advancing the Protecting Our Kids
Speaker 1: Act today. You will not stop us from passing it
Speaker 1: in the House next week, and you will not stop
Speaker 1: us there. If the Filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it.
Speaker 1: If the Supreme Court of X we will expand it.
Speaker 1: And we will not rest until we have taken weapons
Speaker 1: of war out of circulation and our communities. That was
Speaker 1: New York Congressman Mondare Jones laying the blame for mass
Speaker 1: shootings squarely at the feet of Republicans who refuse to
Speaker 1: support new gun control regulations. On the other side of
Speaker 1: the aisle, Congressman Jim Jordan gave an equally impassioned response,
Speaker 1: take a look, now, we know where they want to go.
Speaker 1: They just said it in the filibus. Or expand the court,
Speaker 1: forget the Constitution, now we know Democrats blame guns, they
Speaker 1: criticize the NRA, they call Republicans names. Let's be honest,
Speaker 1: they've told us what they want to do. Their real
Speaker 1: beef is with the Second Amendment. A lot of heated words,
Speaker 1: but ultimately the federal government is unlikely to do all
Speaker 1: that much to address the issue of mass shootings. Author
Speaker 1: and columns David Marcus argues that both sides are at
Speaker 1: fault for a lack of action, and a piece on
Speaker 1: foxnews dot Com, he writes both the right and left
Speaker 1: in America responsible for a lack of action to bring
Speaker 1: mass shootings to an end. Lie of the right is
Speaker 1: that our Second Amendment and freedom to own guns are
Speaker 1: somehow not connected to our wildly high number of gun
Speaker 1: debts alive. A left is that we can achieve the
Speaker 1: results of Europe or Australia without gun confiscation and the
Speaker 1: destruction of a constitutional right. Interesting provocative stuff. Let's talk
Speaker 1: to about it. Join me now, Author and columist David Marcus. David,
Speaker 1: thanks for being with us, Thanks for having me so.
Speaker 1: In your piece, you wrote that the real conversation we
Speaker 1: should be having is this is a conversation we refuse
Speaker 1: to have a debate between accepting the horrible risks of
Speaker 1: freedom or of living our lives under greater control limitations
Speaker 1: the name of safety. It is a conversation that requires
Speaker 1: courage and one that we must no longer avoid. Freedom
Speaker 1: is dangerous. It is no use pretending it isn't end quote.
Speaker 1: Tell me more so, what do you you know philosophically?
Speaker 1: I think I understand the point that's being made. So
Speaker 1: what do you think about the call to action? A
Speaker 1: lot of people say we have to do something, Okay,
Speaker 1: what do we do? I think I have to be
Speaker 1: very careful about the call to action, and especially when
Speaker 1: it's rooted in emotion and fear. I think COVID taught
Speaker 1: us this. Really, they're legitimate competing interests here. I think
Speaker 1: that it's okay for gun rights advocates, and I consider
Speaker 1: myself to be one to acknowledge that if you make
Speaker 1: a choice to have hundreds of millions of privately owned
Speaker 1: guns in your society, there's going to be some gun
Speaker 1: violence as a result of that. But you have to
Speaker 1: treat that as an adult. I mean, you have to
Speaker 1: be able to get away from the immediate emotion of
Speaker 1: something horrible like a school shooting and think about the
Speaker 1: big picture, because what happens otherwise and what happens every
Speaker 1: time is for five days, everybody gets very upset and
Speaker 1: Congressman Jordan and Congressman Jones yell at each other and
Speaker 1: then it goes away and nothing happens. Yes, yes, and
Speaker 1: well I think it part David, because we had very
Speaker 1: similar discussions. And I remember this right after Sandy Hook
Speaker 1: and there were some states like New York for example,
Speaker 1: past I think the Safe Act that got rid of
Speaker 1: assault rifles you couldn't buy ansault rifles. State of New York,
Speaker 1: well their definition of assault rifle because first of all,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of weapons that are as effectively
Speaker 1: lethal as an assault rifle that are that are also rifles.
Speaker 1: So then there were cosmetic changes made to be compliant
Speaker 1: with New York regulation, and at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: it didn't do anything. So I think maybe one of
Speaker 1: the problems is that some of the we have to
Speaker 1: take action and then we say, okay, fine, here what
Speaker 1: is the list of things you want to do. And
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, for example, in the speech last night, talked
Speaker 1: about safe storage requirements. I mean, even theoretically, if that
Speaker 1: were to pass, who's going to enforce safe storage requirements?
Speaker 1: And so if somebody get if someone steals somebody's gun,
Speaker 1: let's say, and does something horrible with it, someone steals
Speaker 1: it out of their home. Where if if a teenager
Speaker 1: gets gets their parents gun and goes and shoot somebody
Speaker 1: with it, you're going to throw all the safe storage
Speaker 1: charge on top of the of the charge of You know,
Speaker 1: this is you start to wonder when you said we
Speaker 1: should have an adult conversation, at what point do we
Speaker 1: just say we can't actually control all human behavior and
Speaker 1: there are already a lot of laws that are trying
Speaker 1: to do that that fail to do that. No, I
Speaker 1: mean I think I think that's what you have to say, right,
Speaker 1: I mean I think that all of this low hanging fruit.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I'm not going to say that it's silly.
Speaker 1: I think that as long as we're not throwing money away,
Speaker 1: if you want to spend more money on mental health,
Speaker 1: if you want to spend more money on these sort
Speaker 1: of like things around the margins, that's fine. But if
Speaker 1: you're talking about addressing the problem, and by the problem
Speaker 1: you mean we want perfect safety, We want nobody to
Speaker 1: ever get killed by guns. You'd have to repeal the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment. I mean, it's it's it's a deeply Unamerican
Speaker 1: way of looking at the problem, because the United States
Speaker 1: is founded on individual freedom, and really the main point
Speaker 1: of that piece is free them is dangerous. When you
Speaker 1: give people freedom, bad things can happen. Also, really wonderful
Speaker 1: things can happen, and that's the risk that you take. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it does remind me at some level of
Speaker 1: the conversations early on from COVID, where you know, people
Speaker 1: were saying, oh, but you know, if we can create
Speaker 1: all these we can shut down the economy. Let's say,
Speaker 1: keep everybody at home. I think we all realized now
Speaker 1: that was just a completely asinine idea, but that is
Speaker 1: what you know, for a week, for two weeks, maybe
Speaker 1: to let the hospitals get capacity. That's how they sold
Speaker 1: it to us. And then it was just we're gonna
Speaker 1: wait out the virus. And everybody realized, well, that can't happen,
Speaker 1: and people like I don't remember if you were making
Speaker 1: this argument, I was making the argum at the time.
Speaker 1: You probably were two. A lot of people die in
Speaker 1: car crashes every year. You could eliminate all you could
Speaker 1: limit all traffic fatalities. If you made the speed limit
Speaker 1: fifteen miles an hour and you don't have to take
Speaker 1: away everyone's car, make the speed limit fifteen miles an
Speaker 1: hour and take away the car off anybody who breaks
Speaker 1: the speed limit, you'd basically maybe you still have, like
Speaker 1: you know, fifty traffic fatalities year. You wouldn't have ten
Speaker 1: thousand and fifteen thousand whatever it is we see a
Speaker 1: year and a year out. People don't want to do that. No,
Speaker 1: And when you made that point early on in COVID,
Speaker 1: you were called a ghoul. Right, And it's exact same
Speaker 1: it's the exact same playbook, right, Because if today you say, listen,
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment is worth some really horrible things that
Speaker 1: may happen as a result of it, you're called a ghoul. Right.
Speaker 1: It really is the same playbook. And unfortunately you can't
Speaker 1: base public policy on the idea of saving every single
Speaker 1: human life. It's it won't work, It'll usually backfire. And
Speaker 1: again it's it's just not how adults deal with these
Speaker 1: kinds of situations. What do you What did you think?
Speaker 1: I mean? I'm meant to ask you this the top,
Speaker 1: but I found your broader philosophical point something we should
Speaker 1: dive into right away. The speech Biden gave last night,
Speaker 1: does he really think that anything is going to be done?
Speaker 1: It just feels to me like this is the playbook.
Speaker 1: They give the speech, laundry list of things, basically nothing happens,
Speaker 1: and then they just go back to what we hate. Republican. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, he had two choices last night. He could
Speaker 1: have delivered a very narrow speech tailored to that low
Speaker 1: hanging fruit, like you know, background checks, red flag laws
Speaker 1: that the bipartisan group in the Senate is working on,
Speaker 1: and and sort of tried to shepherd that through. That's
Speaker 1: not what he did, As you say, he gave the
Speaker 1: classic Democrat speech that says, I'm not going to take
Speaker 1: your guns away. Here's fifteen ways I'm going to take
Speaker 1: your guns away that you know we've been hearing for,
Speaker 1: you know, decades. The one in particular that I really wish,
Speaker 1: I just it is stupid, almost beyond comprehension, is the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment is not absolute. And I sit here in
Speaker 1: New York City where you'd have to to get a pistol,
Speaker 1: not even an assault rifle, a pistol. You're looking at
Speaker 1: about a nine to twelve months wait, lots of processing,
Speaker 1: fingerprinting about a four or five hundred dollars processing fee.
Speaker 1: So you can get a gun, you could only keep
Speaker 1: it home. You cannot carry, and you have to keep
Speaker 1: in a lock box, and you have to keep the
Speaker 1: ammunition in a separate lock box, and you can't even
Speaker 1: leave the city of New York with it. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's an absolute right. I think I think we're
Speaker 1: in the land of stupidity when that's even talked about. No,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I think that's exactly right. And I
Speaker 1: do think that, you know, it may be that people
Speaker 1: in New York City don't want everybody on the subway
Speaker 1: carrying a gun. I mean that that might not be
Speaker 1: what people in New York want, And that's okay, right,
Speaker 1: And we have different laws in different states, and and
Speaker 1: these are also sort of arguments on the margins where
Speaker 1: I get that there's people from other states who want
Speaker 1: to be able to carry in New York. And I
Speaker 1: don't know, like like those are debates that we can have, um.
Speaker 1: But you know, on the big on the big issue,
Speaker 1: we need gun rights in the United States and we
Speaker 1: need to accept that. You know, that comes with some risks.
Speaker 1: It's true. Good boy, David, thanks for being with us,
Speaker 1: appreciate it, thanks for having me. Man administration has announced
Speaker 1: new rules that may defund school lunch programs of school
Speaker 1: districts don't allow trans people to use the bathrooms of
Speaker 1: their choice. We'll have more on that with senior policy
Speaker 1: analyst at the Independent Women's Forum in s Stepman. First,
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about for checking your
Speaker 1: online data. A lot of companies promise your privacy is guaranteed,
Speaker 1: but we know that's not true. That's why you need
Speaker 1: a new privacy and cybersecurity application tool called Secure. It's
Speaker 1: spelled SEK. You are. Secure is using proprietary encryption and
Speaker 1: offering secure instant messaging and email. But Secure all of
Speaker 1: your communication is based on servers and data centers hosted
Speaker 1: in Switzerland without using any of the big tech platforms.
Speaker 1: Privacy is a big issue now. Without real security, people
Speaker 1: can read your emails, messages, even your bank information. Secure
Speaker 1: will never mind your data and never ask for your
Speaker 1: phone number. You can send emails your doctor, banker, lawyer,
Speaker 1: or anyone else with pomocomfidence. You're not being spot on
Speaker 1: by your internet provider or Big Tech. Secure is your
Speaker 1: solutions to stop the constant theft of your digital identity.
Speaker 1: Cost only five dollars for the messenger only ten dollars
Speaker 1: to the messenger and email combination package. Go to secure
Speaker 1: dot com and take back your privacy today. That's sekure
Speaker 1: dot com and use promo code buck for twenty five
Speaker 1: percent off. We'll be right back with more. Hold the line.
Speaker 1: The idea that I'm going to say, which I would
Speaker 1: never do. An unaccompanied child ends up at the border,
Speaker 1: We're just gonna let him starve to death and stay
Speaker 1: on the other side. No previous administration's debt either except Trump.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to do it. That was Joe Biden
Speaker 1: last year, assuring us that his administration wouldn't allow immigrant
Speaker 1: children to go hungry, But apparently he'd be okay with
Speaker 1: letting a lot of kids in America go hungry. According
Speaker 1: to an article from The Washington Examiner, the Department of
Speaker 1: Agriculture announced that it would interpret Title nine to include
Speaker 1: sexual orientation and gender identity. This means schools will also
Speaker 1: be subject to this definition of that's certain federally funded programs,
Speaker 1: such as school lunches. That's right, school lunch tied to
Speaker 1: the trans agenda and gender identity. So you better go
Speaker 1: along with this or you go hungry. Apparently, according to Biden,
Speaker 1: joined me now to discuss senior policy analysts of the
Speaker 1: Independent Women's Forum in as Stepman. Yes, thanks be with us,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me, Buck. This is a kind of
Speaker 1: wow moment, I think just because it's one of those
Speaker 1: headlines that read, you say, that can't be right, but
Speaker 1: is it right? Because it seems like we've had a
Speaker 1: few reports on this. Now Yeah, not only is it right,
Speaker 1: it's actually just the first salvo of what are probably
Speaker 1: a bunch of departments that are going to issue reg's
Speaker 1: getting in line with the General Promulgation of Regulations on
Speaker 1: Title nine that the Department of Education is working on
Speaker 1: and what's supposed to release, you know, a month and
Speaker 1: a half ago. Now they're saying it'll be some time
Speaker 1: this month. They're playing with us a little bit as
Speaker 1: to when they actually release it. But we know what
Speaker 1: the substance of those regulations are and is rather and
Speaker 1: the major piece of that is that, in fact, they're
Speaker 1: going to include gender identity as part of the definition
Speaker 1: of sex, which is going to force every single school
Speaker 1: that takes a dime from the federal government, whether that's
Speaker 1: through a school lunch program, whether that's through for example,
Speaker 1: a textbook program. So it could sweep in a lot
Speaker 1: of private schools, and then of course public schools all
Speaker 1: the way from K twelve and then all the way
Speaker 1: up through the university university level, all of those schools
Speaker 1: are impacted by Title nine, and their regulations are essentially
Speaker 1: going to say you must accept boys who identify as
Speaker 1: women in every sort of women's in girls' space, or
Speaker 1: you will lose your funding. So yeah, I mean you
Speaker 1: wrote in a Wall Street Journal op ed that without
Speaker 1: congressional authorization or other constitutional authority, the Biden administration is
Speaker 1: writing new Title nine rules to socially engineer every aspect
Speaker 1: of the educational experience, from students speech and school athletics
Speaker 1: to high school locker room use and relationships between adult
Speaker 1: college students. I mean, that is a that's a sweeping
Speaker 1: span of things that they're going to try to socially
Speaker 1: engineer or under Title nine. I mean, so you mentioned
Speaker 1: the gender identity component. What are some of these what
Speaker 1: are some of these other aspects? I mean, you just
Speaker 1: talk about students speech, we are what are they hoping
Speaker 1: to force on people that's outside of just the gender
Speaker 1: identity issue. Yeah, I mean, there's a very good argument
Speaker 1: to be made. This is the biggest, most sweeping change
Speaker 1: the law that's ever been made by unelected bureaucrats. There's
Speaker 1: a very good case to be made. So not only
Speaker 1: does it essentially implement, in the context of education more
Speaker 1: or less the Equality Act, which is something that failed
Speaker 1: in Congress, by the way, it also overturns in two
Speaker 1: main buckets of constitutional rights regulations that are promulgated by
Speaker 1: the Trump Department of Education, which are in line with
Speaker 1: Supreme Court precedents. So it's not just that are overturning
Speaker 1: regulations from the previous administration. They're contradicting Supreme Court precedent
Speaker 1: in two very critical areas. Ones due process and the
Speaker 1: other is free speech. Due process. Everything that happened to Cavana, right,
Speaker 1: that's been happening on college campuses for a long time.
Speaker 1: There have been nearly two hundred federal cases decide on
Speaker 1: due process favorably, mostly for boys and men who have
Speaker 1: been sued because they were denied their due process rights
Speaker 1: and they were punished on the mere accusation of any
Speaker 1: kind of sexual misconduct. So that's one one bucket that
Speaker 1: is going to be reversed and those protections taken away
Speaker 1: in an unconstitutional manner. And on speech, it's because college
Speaker 1: campuses mostly this is mostly a university issue. They've defined
Speaker 1: sexual harassment way beyond how the Supreme Court has defined
Speaker 1: it and starting to sweep in things that are protected speech. So,
Speaker 1: for example, there is actually a liberal feminist professor who
Speaker 1: had was investigated under Title nine for publishing a public
Speaker 1: article about sex roles. Okay, so like this is sweeping
Speaker 1: and protected speech. This is not what people think of
Speaker 1: as sexual harassment. This is I heard something about you know, sex, gender,
Speaker 1: sex roles, whatever, and it offends me, and that's harassment
Speaker 1: under Title nine. So that's an huge impingement on freedom
Speaker 1: of speech, both of these due process, free speech, fundamental
Speaker 1: constitutional rights. This is I mean, this is this is us.
Speaker 1: And so it sounds like essentially, let's let's just say
Speaker 1: if I am a university student and I am and
Speaker 1: someone says, well, I go by the I go by
Speaker 1: the pronoun they, because that is my preferred pronoun. Under
Speaker 1: the Biden administration's new interpretation of Title nine. I could theoretically,
Speaker 1: if I refuse to use the plural they pronoun for
Speaker 1: an individual who claims to be transgender, could I be
Speaker 1: sanctioned under Tuttle nine? Is that is that where we're heading, Well,
Speaker 1: the school will be sanctioned, right, So then sanctioned you right,
Speaker 1: So like school will either lose its funding or be
Speaker 1: subject to investigation. This is already happening because of course,
Speaker 1: as we know, schools are already very happy to do
Speaker 1: a lot of this. They're very happy to impinge on
Speaker 1: constitutional rights. They're very happy to read a fine sex
Speaker 1: and so schools are already pointing to Title nine, even
Speaker 1: though these regulations are not in place yet. So we
Speaker 1: had this this episode in Wisconsin. Within am I believe
Speaker 1: it was a middle school, right, an eighth grade boy
Speaker 1: refused to use the preferred pronouns of a they them classmate,
Speaker 1: and the school shut it down and punished the kid
Speaker 1: on the basis that. And then they pointed to Title nine,
Speaker 1: and they said, we have to do this because Title
Speaker 1: nine requires it. This is a violation, that's a Title
Speaker 1: nine violation. We have to punish this eighth grader for
Speaker 1: not calling his classmates. They then so there's a Daily
Speaker 1: Mail headline. My team, My team just told me about
Speaker 1: this furious parents rally at Virginia Middle School as boards
Speaker 1: suggests punishing children for dead naming if they use trans
Speaker 1: classmates old names. I mean again, I read this headline,
Speaker 1: I think, come on, that can't really be. But it
Speaker 1: is happening, isn't It's absolutely happening. And if these regulations
Speaker 1: there will be a notice in comment period people can
Speaker 1: and should write in their opinion because it occupies bureaucrats
Speaker 1: as they have to answer every single substantive concern. But
Speaker 1: when these regulations are released, that will be the position
Speaker 1: of the federal government on our most powerful federal laws,
Speaker 1: which is civil rights law. Right, So this is important,
Speaker 1: just so I know how far along? First of all,
Speaker 1: how do we know that this is what they're planning? Like,
Speaker 1: what is that? What is that basic? And also how
Speaker 1: far along in the process, And do we know when
Speaker 1: this rule should is supposed to be announced? So it
Speaker 1: was supposed to be announced back in April. They continued
Speaker 1: meetings through May. Now they're saying they're going to release
Speaker 1: it in June this month. I don't know when exactly
Speaker 1: they're going to promulgate this, but they did leak it
Speaker 1: to Politico, probably on purpose, to Politico and the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: The substance of these regulations, so it's not really that
Speaker 1: much in doubt. I mean, things may be phrased one
Speaker 1: way or another way, but these three buckets of changing
Speaker 1: the definition of sex, attacking due process, attacking free speech,
Speaker 1: those three buckets are likely to come out in the
Speaker 1: proposed rule very similarly. I honestly think they're playing with
Speaker 1: us because they know they can rely on schools to
Speaker 1: actually implement these changes ahead of the rule actually going
Speaker 1: into effect. So I think what they're trying to do
Speaker 1: is minimize or delay the backlash. I wouldn't be surprised
Speaker 1: that these REGs don't formally drop until after the election,
Speaker 1: for example, I was going to ask you, because they
Speaker 1: have to know that what we've seen in Loudon County, Virginia,
Speaker 1: and now in Florida with Disney and the trans thing
Speaker 1: for kids, this is turning into an outside of their
Speaker 1: base and outside of the deepest blue states. It's a
Speaker 1: political liability for them. It's absolutely a political liability for them. Again,
Speaker 1: they're saying, and maybe it's true that they're going to
Speaker 1: release them in June. Maybe they just are taking longer
Speaker 1: than usuals every bureacratic process always does. But I tend
Speaker 1: to suspect there's at least the possibility that they aren't
Speaker 1: going to want to delay putting this forward until after
Speaker 1: the election. And the meantime, they have schools who are
Speaker 1: like this Wisconsin school are enforcing it anyway, so they
Speaker 1: kind of have their cake and get like they eat
Speaker 1: their cake and have it too, or whatever how that
Speaker 1: phrase goes. They're actually these REGs are being implemented as
Speaker 1: we speak by schools across the country. They get all
Speaker 1: the substance they want, and they get to a delay
Speaker 1: the political backlash for having actually promulgated rules this broad
Speaker 1: and this dismissive of fundamental constitutional rights and as really
Speaker 1: interesting stuff. Good work. We'll talk to you again about
Speaker 1: it soon. Thank you, Thank you. The White House has
Speaker 1: announced that children under the age of five will likely
Speaker 1: be eligible to receive the COVID nineteen vaccine in the
Speaker 1: coming weeks, which is totally unnecessary if you actually look
Speaker 1: at the data. We'll have more on that with the
Speaker 1: first TVs T and Aloe in a moment. Stay with us.
Speaker 1: Each morning, the President of the United States receives a
Speaker 1: highly classified briefing on the most important issues facing the country.
Speaker 1: It's called the President's Daily Brief or PDB. It's delivered
Speaker 1: by America's spies and analysts. Well, now you can hear
Speaker 1: your very own PDB in the form of a podcast
Speaker 1: hosted by me Brian Dean Wright, a former CIA operations officer.
Speaker 1: Each morning at six am Eastern, I'll bring you fifteen
Speaker 1: to twenty minutes of the most important issues facing the country,
Speaker 1: giving you the critical intelligence and analysis you need to
Speaker 1: start your morning. Let's talk about what we know at
Speaker 1: this moment. We know that many many parents are eager
Speaker 1: to vaccinate their youngest kids, and it's important to do
Speaker 1: this right. We expect that vaccinations will begin in earnest
Speaker 1: as early as Tuesday, June twenty first, and really roll
Speaker 1: on throughout that week. White House COVID nineteen Response Coordinator
Speaker 1: doctor Ashish Jah says children under five years old could
Speaker 1: receive their first vaccine before the end of this month.
Speaker 1: But our parents really that anxious to get their really
Speaker 1: young kids vaccinated. Contributor here at the first TV Tiina
Speaker 1: Lowe joins me now to drop some truth bombs here, Tina,
Speaker 1: What is wrong with these government bureaucrats who seem to
Speaker 1: think that there is a frenzy from parents to get
Speaker 1: their four year olds vaxed? What's going on? All you
Speaker 1: have to do is look at the most blue areas
Speaker 1: of America to see how little vaccine uptake there has
Speaker 1: been for those five through eleven even in you know,
Speaker 1: Indigo blue Washington, DC. I think it's you were, than
Speaker 1: half of all five through eleven year old children have
Speaker 1: been vaccinative. And that's you know, DC's ninety two percent
Speaker 1: of Washington d C voted for Joe Biden. You really
Speaker 1: couldn't get a more representative data set of what the
Speaker 1: president's base looks like, and you know, they aren't taking
Speaker 1: it up. So it seems really unclear that there is
Speaker 1: going to be a mad dash for the under fives,
Speaker 1: especially considering that virtually no under fives have died of this.
Speaker 1: And it also just goes to show that the priority
Speaker 1: from this White House is not in ensuring that those seniors,
Speaker 1: who again are the ones who are actually dying of
Speaker 1: this thing, ensuring that seniors are you know, getting vaccinated,
Speaker 1: getting boosters. Instead, we're focusing on what literally dozens of
Speaker 1: death I mean, even under seventeen, barely one thousand Americans
Speaker 1: under the age of eighteen have died from it, just
Speaker 1: once again shows it is about appeasing a very very specific,
Speaker 1: over educated, white millennial women demographic. The President has been
Speaker 1: courting this in his COVID campaign, no focus on global
Speaker 1: COVID outreach, no focus on just you know, keeping the
Speaker 1: hospitalization wrote with the hospitalization rate low with seniors, and
Speaker 1: instead all about just this performative anxiety about risking the
Speaker 1: idea that you know your kid could be one of
Speaker 1: a dozen four year old who guys of COVID children
Speaker 1: currently representing about eighteen point nine percent pretty specific there
Speaker 1: of all COVID nineteen cases reported in the US. So
Speaker 1: that's more than thirteen point three million infections. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've had lots and lots of kids who have gotten
Speaker 1: the disease, and to your point, they're basically fine, and
Speaker 1: we also are to believe, based on the data, that
Speaker 1: they're very unlikely compared to adults, to even spread it
Speaker 1: to other people. So on what basis do children need
Speaker 1: the vaccine at all? I guess I just wonder why
Speaker 1: are we even still having this I mean it's not
Speaker 1: just conversation. I mean the government is pushing this no,
Speaker 1: and I mean I think the only good thing is
Speaker 1: that you see globally, you know, global liberals have really
Speaker 1: and Europe has really put us to shame and the
Speaker 1: idea of for them. You know, some of these countries
Speaker 1: that even had very stringent vaccine mandates for adults really
Speaker 1: made noish like Bush to vaccinate children. You have a
Speaker 1: place like France where they had a very hardcore vaccine
Speaker 1: mandate for adults for a couple of months in place
Speaker 1: got through adult vacs numbers up really high, and now
Speaker 1: there was never really any regulation for the kids. I
Speaker 1: mean from school closures to now you know, vaccs mandates
Speaker 1: and requests, the US has been a global outlier, and
Speaker 1: I suppose the only good thing about it is, you know,
Speaker 1: you can't get a majority of parents in DC to
Speaker 1: vaccinate your five year old. I don't know how there
Speaker 1: will be a I am Bush to get you know,
Speaker 1: newborns vaccinated. And again for COVID. This has been true
Speaker 1: when we've known this. You know, we can pretend March
Speaker 1: twenty twenty no one knew what the hell was going on.
Speaker 1: But by April and May twenty twenty, we did know
Speaker 1: that this was quite literally just the flu four kids,
Speaker 1: and especially those youngest kids. We aren't even talking about
Speaker 1: college campuses, where you do have more pre existing conditions
Speaker 1: like obesity, like asthma, like type two diabetes. Among these
Speaker 1: youngest kids, they don't have any of those preexisting risk
Speaker 1: factors right now. The biggest risk to their home is
Speaker 1: that they get locked in at home wearing a mask
Speaker 1: and gained a bunch of weight because they aren't allowed
Speaker 1: to go play out on the playground and socialize. By
Speaker 1: the way, speaking of the playgrounds and what's going on
Speaker 1: with kids still in the COVID what should feel like
Speaker 1: the post COVID era, But we're really not entirely there,
Speaker 1: at least in the Blue States. People live in you know, Texas, Nebraska, Florida,
Speaker 1: they're like, what are you even talking about? If you
Speaker 1: live in New York in California. I think Oakland just
Speaker 1: put masked mandates back in place, and New York still
Speaker 1: has them, And people are upset about this on Toddler's
Speaker 1: here and parents are really annoyed with Mayor Eric Adams
Speaker 1: for keeping the mask man at least some parents are
Speaker 1: They're saying it's an absurdity. I mean, here he goes
Speaker 1: a New York resident. I voted for Adams because his
Speaker 1: whole platform is that he would get things back to normal.
Speaker 1: It's just been really frustrating because it seems like Mayor
Speaker 1: Adams is doing nothing about it. There's been no update
Speaker 1: about what they'll be in the summer, and as a parent,
Speaker 1: it's very frustrating. Makes me question whether New York City
Speaker 1: is the right place to raise my family. That's Danielle Pollock,
Speaker 1: a wron's mother of two. I mean, you know, I
Speaker 1: can just say anecdotally, I think this is increasingly representative
Speaker 1: TNL of what people are feeling here, which is so
Speaker 1: no one else's mass. Basically, adults aren't mass, and kids
Speaker 1: twelve year olds not masked, eighteen year olds not masked,
Speaker 1: four year olds are massed, Like what are they doing? No?
Speaker 1: Eric Adams explicitly ran on major platforms, one combating crime
Speaker 1: as he was the Brooklyn Police commissioner, and two bringing
Speaker 1: New York back. He has made this major push to
Speaker 1: have all of the office buildings in Midtown and downtown reopened,
Speaker 1: to have normal traffic back in restaurants, but his big
Speaker 1: thing has been the workplace. Now here he is mistaking
Speaker 1: effect and cause he does not realize that by keeping
Speaker 1: kids in this mask regime, you have tons of parents
Speaker 1: who have gone out to Connecticut, who have gone to Godford,
Speaker 1: mid New Jersey because they don't want their kids going
Speaker 1: to school in this permanent masking state. I know personally,
Speaker 1: a bunch of people who consider themselves lifelong Manhattanite who
Speaker 1: have decided to DeCamp do you know, Greenwich, Connecticut. And
Speaker 1: you will not get those office buildings back to capacity
Speaker 1: so long as you have parents terrified either because they
Speaker 1: have the mandatory school closures based on quarantine annuals, which
Speaker 1: we know are still insane in New York, or because
Speaker 1: they just want to forego the masking regime entirely. You
Speaker 1: know Eric Adams, he's been spotted jumping around with models
Speaker 1: like Kara Delavine at nightclubs, hitting up you know, the
Speaker 1: most expensive spot, going to the met Gala. These kids
Speaker 1: are still in mask. Not a mask to be seen
Speaker 1: on Eric Adams. And that's fine because he should understand it.
Speaker 1: As a healthy person who is that you know, upwards
Speaker 1: of a year at this point to choose to get
Speaker 1: the vaccine, not get the vaccine, whatever, But why but
Speaker 1: the most onerous regulation on the demographic least likely vaccinated
Speaker 1: or not to come down in any severe case of COVID.
Speaker 1: And you know, Eric Adams, he's had a hundred days
Speaker 1: in office, he's he's he's had an ample honeymoon period.
Speaker 1: But I think Prime isn't getting any better. And the
Speaker 1: mask thing is just really rubbing New Yorker's nose in it.
Speaker 1: The last we actually have some some data on this team.
Speaker 1: Parents of school age children say masks harm their kids.
Speaker 1: Forty six percent say masked harm kids social learning interactions,
Speaker 1: thirty nine percent say masked harm kids mental and emotional health.
Speaker 1: This is a politico Harvard survey, so yeah, parents do
Speaker 1: realize this is actually bad. This is a problem. Yes.
Speaker 1: And the craziest thing about that political Harvard bull is
Speaker 1: when you know bifur kate between Republicans and Democrats, even Democrats,
Speaker 1: you still have on all those figures a majority either
Speaker 1: think it harmful or does nothing. We as citizens accept
Speaker 1: a regulation. We do not do so because it is useless.
Speaker 1: We accept a regulation as a populist because a majority
Speaker 1: of people are supposed to think that it is helpful.
Speaker 1: And the fact that not a majority of Democrats think
Speaker 1: that these mass mandates are helpful for their children just
Speaker 1: goes to show how much you know, these federal bureaucrats,
Speaker 1: and these blue state and blue city bureaucrats have just
Speaker 1: completely lost the plot on what people care about. Tina,
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us. Always good to see him.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Buck. After the creepy porn lawyer Michael Avanati
Speaker 1: learns his fate, it probably wasn't what he was hoping for.
Speaker 1: We'll have that in quick Kits, stay with us. President
Speaker 1: Biden is living in fantasy lamb when it comes to
Speaker 1: the American people and the economy. Plus, Michael Avenati gets
Speaker 1: a four year term, just not the one that he'd
Speaker 1: hope for those stories on quick Kids. Let's get right
Speaker 1: to it. First of all, the economy sucks. We all
Speaker 1: know that inflation is at a forty year high. The
Speaker 1: cost of everything that you need to just live your
Speaker 1: life is much much higher than it was before Biden
Speaker 1: took office. People know this. Three quarters of the American
Speaker 1: people think the economy is on the wrong track, So
Speaker 1: that includes a whole lot of Democrats. Although someone almost
Speaker 1: say it's not Biden's fault. Yeah, right, whatever point here being,
Speaker 1: it's not good out there. Everyone kind of knows that
Speaker 1: at some level. But Joe Biden knows that his party
Speaker 1: is coming up. Party in power, Democrats. They have the House,
Speaker 1: they have the Senate, they have the Biden Ministry, I mean,
Speaker 1: they have the Biden White House. He knows that they
Speaker 1: are heading for a shell lacking in this midgim election.
Speaker 1: So what is he gonna do? Well, try whatever he
Speaker 1: can to convince the easily suede that, oh no, that
Speaker 1: economy that you think is so bad, it's actually great.
Speaker 1: Watch since it took office, families are carrying less dead,
Speaker 1: their average savings are up. The recent survey from the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve found that more Americans feel financially comfortable than
Speaker 1: any time since the survey began in twenty thirteen. It's
Speaker 1: just great out there. Joe's a genius when it comes
Speaker 1: to the economy, don't you know. He's doing a great job.
Speaker 1: Heck of a job for Joe Biden, ensure you. But
Speaker 1: what are they gonna say, it was all a mistake,
Speaker 1: We lied to you. Joe Biden's a moron. No, they're
Speaker 1: not going to say that even though we can kind
Speaker 1: of all see what's true what's not. Michael Vinati, who
Speaker 1: was aptly dubbed by Hucker Carlson a Fox News the
Speaker 1: creepy porn lawyer Avanadi, you will recall, at one point
Speaker 1: in recent history, back in twenty eighteen, was the single
Speaker 1: most frequent guest for a few months on CNN. That's
Speaker 1: actually true. He was the most aired guest on CNN's
Speaker 1: air who was not an employee of the network for
Speaker 1: a few months, and he was talked about even by
Speaker 1: some Democrats as a possible last minute, if you will,
Speaker 1: or possible out of nowhere presidential candidate for the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: Turns out he is a creepy porn lawyer. He's a scumbag,
Speaker 1: and now he is going to four years in prison
Speaker 1: for stealing money from his client, Stormy Daniels. So yet
Speaker 1: another time where we see here the Left was willing
Speaker 1: to elevate human refuse in order to attack Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and this guy was treated like some kind of a hero.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you go back and listen to what
Speaker 1: they were saying about him on CNN, on MSNBC, and
Speaker 1: the kind of articles that are being written in the
Speaker 1: most widely read Democrat publications. They acted like Michael Labanatti
Speaker 1: was a great hero of the Republic. He is a
Speaker 1: scumbag lawyer who steals from clients, lies to people, and
Speaker 1: has no ethics whatsoever. And now he's going to federal prison.
Speaker 1: But those are the kinds of people they're willing to
Speaker 1: tell you are great as long as they were useful
Speaker 1: in attacking Donald Trump in some capacity. There's David Hogg,
Speaker 1: the anti gun activist who tweeted this out, Non Americans
Speaker 1: should not come here until our country does something about
Speaker 1: gun safety. Your kids are not safe here, and neither
Speaker 1: are you. Please request your government put out a travel
Speaker 1: advisor to your citizens telling them it is not safe
Speaker 1: for citizens to visit the US. I mean, he's just
Speaker 1: not smart. But again, when he was entering the world
Speaker 1: of politics, he was not yet technically an adult. I
Speaker 1: think he was seventeen. So they put him forward because
Speaker 1: he had survived the shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School.
Speaker 1: He had been one of the students at that high school.
Speaker 1: They put him forward as a survivor of the shooting
Speaker 1: and as a child or as a non adult. So
Speaker 1: if you criticize his policy ideas you were a bad person.
Speaker 1: They did the same thing with Greta Thunberg on climate
Speaker 1: change for example. So you're not allowed to criticize. You
Speaker 1: have to sit there and listen to somebody who in
Speaker 1: this case, as we all see now that he's an adult,
Speaker 1: I can say plainly, he's a moron, a little moron
Speaker 1: knows nothing, but they elevated him to hero status as well.
Speaker 1: Noticing noticing a pattern here, folks, Then Biden had a
Speaker 1: snarky response to the richest man in the world, Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: who was concerned about the economy. Watch Elon Musk has asked,
Speaker 1: has said that he has a super bad feeling about
Speaker 1: the US econies. Hang say Elon Musk and has feeling
Speaker 1: about the economy. Jade Diamond has said similar things. Well,
Speaker 1: let me tell you well, Belon Musk has talked about
Speaker 1: that Ford is an increasing their investment overwhelmingly. I think
Speaker 1: Ford is increasing investment in bibuilding new electric vehicles six
Speaker 1: thousand new employees union employees. I might add in the Midwest,
Speaker 1: the former Chrysler Corporations slaunis they are also making similar
Speaker 1: investments and electric vehicles. Intel has added twenty thousand new
Speaker 1: jobs or making computer chips, so you know, lots of
Speaker 1: luck Inness trip to the Moon. I mean, I don't,
Speaker 1: I mean yeah. Who do you want to listen to
Speaker 1: when it comes to the economy? Self made richest man
Speaker 1: in the world or the guy who can only create
Speaker 1: jobs for his crack addict son to get paid off
Speaker 1: by Russian or rather Ukrainian and Chinese oligarchs and corrupts
Speaker 1: his interest. You know the answer. That's everything I told
Speaker 1: the line The no Spin News of Bill O'Reilly is
Speaker 1: next Shields High. Each morning, the President of the United
Speaker 1: States receives a highly classified briefing on the most important
Speaker 1: issues face in the country. It's called the President's Daily
Speaker 1: Brief or PDB. It's delivered by America's spies and analysts. Well,
Speaker 1: now you can hear your very own PDB in the
Speaker 1: form of a podcast hosted by me Brian Dean Wright,
Speaker 1: a former CIA operations officer. Each morning at six am Eastern,
Speaker 1: I'll bring you fifteen to twenty minutes of the most
Speaker 1: important issues facing the country, giving you the critical intelligence
Speaker 1: and analysis you need to start your morning.